Case summaries for March 14-20, 2025

ADR | Criminal | Employment security | Evidence | Family | Local government | Mental health | Personal injury | Post-conviction relief | Probate | Real estate | Workers' compensation

ADR

Substantial litigation waived arbitration 
When the existence of a valid arbitration clause was uncontested, appellate courts reviewed de novo the arbitration clause’s enforcement. Enforcement of an arbitration clause was subject to waiver by conduct inconsistent with enforcement of a known right. Such a waiver occurred when appellants included an arbitration clause in their warranty but litigated respondent’s warranty claim — including responsive pleadings, discovery, and motions directed at the petition — without seeking arbitration until after a setting for jury trial. The circuit court denied appellants’ motion to compel arbitration and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling. 
MARLA HOUSLEY and HEATH HOUSLEY, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. AUTOHAUS, L.L.C., and AUTO SERVICES COMPANY, INC., Respondents-Appellants 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38561

Litigation did not waive arbitration 
The right to arbitration as set forth in a contract was subject to waiver by a party’s conduct inconsistent with arbitration, even without a showing of prejudice, and constituted an affirmative defense not waived until omitted from a responsive pleading. Buyer brought an action against seller’s assignee challenging a fee allowed by statute for some transactions and not others. The contract’s plain language made the right to arbitration subject to assignment. The assignee raised the right to arbitration in responsive pleadings and before, so such conduct did not waive arbitration. The Supreme Court of Missouri declined plain error review on unconscionability. 
Connie Lange, Appellant, vs. GMT Auto Sales, Inc., Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100608

Criminal

No plain error review for unresolved issues 
Statutes barred operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. Constitutional provisions protected defendant's right to silence. At trial, the state repeatedly referred to the fact that defendant never denied operating the vehicle, and defendant did not object. Whether the state could use defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence for impeachment was unresolved so the Missouri Court of Appeals declined plain error review. “[S]itting behind the wheel with the engine running is sufficient for a jury to find that driver operated the vehicle . . . . ” The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri vs. Brian L. Mefford 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86719

Self-defense instruction was due 
Unpreserved error was subject to review only for plain error, which occurred when an error was obvious and manifest injustice. “[I]f there is substantial evidence of [self-]defense, the trial court must give the instruction even if the defense objects to the instruction and it is inconsistent with the defendant's defense.” Failure to give a self-defense instruction deprived the jury of the chance to apply a legal theory supported by the evidence. The Missouri Court of Appeals vacated the convictions and remanded the action for a new trial. 
STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent v. RICHARD NEIL BURKETT, Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38459

One vehicle, two counties, two prosecutions, no double jeopardy 
Constitutional provisions governing double jeopardy barred successive prosecutions for a single offense. A statute defined a single offense to include “a continuing course of conduct [that was] uninterrupted[.]” Double jeopardy was an affirmative defense. Defendant operated victim’s vehicle without victim’s consent through two counties with a pause to commit theft before resuming operation. The state charged defendant with first degree tampering in one county, prevailed on that charge, and then charged defendant with first degree tampering in the other county. The separate excursion in the same vehicle was a separate offense and not part of one continuous course of conduct. “Where a defendant’s underlying conduct potentially constitutes multiple different criminal offenses, it is for a prosecutor to decide which offense to charge; a defendant cannot override that exercise of prosecutorial discretion by arguing that another offense could have been charged.” The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the second conviction. 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian K. Heathcock, Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100734

Conviction for interfering with an arrest affirmed 
The elements of interfering with an arrest included using physical interference. “The plain and ordinary meaning of the statute, however, does not require an affirmative act to effectuate physical interference. Rather, [the statute was violated if defendant] allowed a material thing to carry out the purpose of meddling in or hampering law enforcement’s ability to effectuate the arrest of Passenger.” Thus, defendant used physical interference refusal to manually unlock an automatically locked car door. The Supreme Court of Missouri affirmed the convictions. 
State of Missouri, Respondent, vs. Brian V. Milazzo, Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100652

Employment security

No good cause shown, no good use of AI made 
Appellate courts reviewed decisions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, so when the commission did not decide claims on the merits, appellate courts did not reach the merits of the claims. The commission decided only that claimant lacked good cause for missing a telephone hearing on the claim, so good cause was the only ruling before the appellate court, not the merits of the claim. Incorrectly noting the time of the hearing was not good cause. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s ruling. Also, an improper use of artificial intelligence in drafting was apparent from fictitious authorities in appellant’s brief. Such improper use constituted “an abuse of the adversary system.” 
(Overview Summary) 
Angela D. Stevens, Appellant, v. BJC Health System and Division of Employment Security, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112759

Evidence

Evidence of victim’s hobbies and activities was relevant 
“Generally, evidence of prior bad acts is inadmissible to show the propensity of the defendant to commit the crime for which he is charged; [however, v]ague and indefinite references to misconduct do not warrant a mistrial unless the reference is clear evidence of the defendant’s involvement in another crime.” An isolated statement, quickly cured by the circuit court, and not outcome determinative, did not require a mistrial. Defendant alleged that victim was a menacing individual, so evidence of victim’s innocuous hobbies and charitable activities was relevant, and defendant showed no prejudice. No plain error occurred when the circuit court limited defendant’s evidence of victim’s conduct unrelated to the offense charged. 
(Overview Summary) 
State of Missouri, Respondent, v. Deandre Wilkes, Appellant. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112156

Family

Termination of parental rights affirmed 
Substantial evidence showed that that appellant had failed to rectify the circumstances that brought appellant’s children into the circuit court’s authority more than a year before, and the circuit court found that evidence clear, cogent, and convincing. The evidence included: incomplete parenting education, counseling, and substance abuse treatment; unstable home and employment; and failure to communicate with Children’s Division and visit children. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the best interests of the children favored termination of parental rights. The circuit court terminated appellant’s parental rights and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
In the Interest of L.M.S. & L.S.S., Minors. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112602 and ED112603

No right to appear at trial
The absence of a written motion was sufficient grounds to deny a continuance. No continuance was necessary to permit appellant’s appearance when released from jail because “A party has no constitutional or statutory right to appear in person at a civil trial. It is well settled that a prisoner is not entitled to perfect access to the courts; an incarcerated person is entitled to meaningful access. This right of access is satisfied by the presence of sufficient alternatives to a personal appearance when the prisoner makes a timely request” Zealous counsel, with whom appellant had met during a previous continuance, sufficed as an alternative to a personal appearance at trial. A challenge to a judgment as against the weight of the evidence required consideration of all evidence supporting the judgment, which appellant omitted. The circuit court’s finding that termination of appellant’s parental rights was in the child’s best interest had support in evidence that appellant failed to visit the children consistently and provide support during foster care. “When a parent refuses ‘to cooperate with and fail[s] to progress in services offered, the court may find that additional services would be useless.’”
In the Interest of K.G.K. and A.R.K., MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION, Respondent v. S.J.K., Appellant
Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District - SD38474 and SD38654

Local government

County classification system discussed 
Circuit courts had jurisdiction over all matters and authority as described by statutes. Constitutional provisions prescribed a classification system for counties. Statutes governing the classification of counties provided that counties moved among classifications according to their assessed property valuations by operation of law with certain exceptions. Reading statutes otherwise “would potentially create a constitutional infirmity.” The state auditor gave notice of, but did not determine, classifications and so was not a necessary party in actions related to classification. As to a petition alleging fourth-class status, admitted in responsive pleadings, the circuit court erred in dismissing for lack of specific allegations on valuation history. One statute generally treated certain fourth-class counties as second-class counties. Another statute specifically required certain fourth-class counties to pay more into the assessor’s fund than second-class counties. The latter did not constitute a specific exception to the former and had no current “operative effect[,]” so a petition based on that latter statute failed to state a claim, and the circuit court did not err in dismissing it. Constitutional provisions restricted post-performance bonuses for employees to the bonuses already provided in the employees’ compensation structure, so a county officer could not reward her workers for completing their duties early, and the circuit court did not err in dismissing a claim to the contrary. Dismissals not designated as with prejudice or without prejudice were presumed to be without prejudice. A dismissal without prejudice for failure to state a claim was subject to appeal when the plaintiff elected to stand on the dismissed appeal. 
(Overview Summary) 
Jessica A. Goodman, Saline County Assessor vs. Saline County Commission and Kile Guthrey, Jr., Presiding Commissioner, and Stephanie Gooden, Northern Commissioner, and Charles Monte Fenner, Southern Commissioner, and Cindi Sims, Saline County Collector 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District - WD86126

Mental health

No mental examinations for ordinance violations 
Writs of prohibition issued to prevent usurpations of power and a judgment making final a writ of prohibition were subject to review for abuse of discretion. In municipal division actions prosecuting ordinance violations, the municipal division granted defendants’ motions for mental examinations and ordered the Department of Mental Health to conduct those mental examinations. Mental examinations were within any judge’s statutory authority in criminal actions, but criminal actions did not include ordinance prosecutions because those actions were civil in nature. Also, the municipal division did not show that ordering the department to conduct a mental examination was an inherent power. The circuit court issued its writ of prohibition to bar enforcement of the municipal division’s order and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
Department of Mental Health vs. The Honorable Michael C. Heffernon 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Western District – WD86966 (Consolidated with WD86969, WD86972, WD86973, WD86974, WD86975, WD86976, WD86978, WD86982, WD86983, WD86984, WD86985)

Personal injury

Primary assumption of the risk not preserved 
Motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict sought only reconsideration of a motion for directed verdict, were necessary to preserve matters for appellate review, and found no substitute in a motion for new trial. The general prayer for relief in defendant’s motion for new trial, “such other and further relief as [the circuit court] deems just and appropriate under the circumstances” did not support a specific grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict. In asking for a new trial instead of judgment, defendant failed to preserve its defense under the doctrine of implied primary assumption of the risk. Objecting before the jury was sworn did not preserve error. The verdict director properly set forth separate allegations of negligent conduct in the disjunctive and did not give the jury a roving commission. 
Melissa Moody, Respondent, vs. Dynamic Fitness Management, LTD., Appellant. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100711

Recreational use act applied 
Writs of prohibition issued to prevent waste of judicial resources, like when a circuit court had no authority to hold defendant liable. The Recreational Use Act provided that landowners allowing persons on their land for recreation without charge had no duty to protect to such recreational users. The same result applied to defendant’s employees. The act retained liability for reasonably knowable, known, or ultra-hazardous conditions; but that did not describe the source of plaintiff’s injury. The circuit court erred in failing to enter judgment for defendant, so the Supreme Court of Missouri made its preliminary writ of prohibition permanent. 
(Overview Summary)
State ex rel. State of Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Relator, vs. The Honorable Kevin Crane, Respondent. 
Supreme Court of Missouri – SC100623

Post-conviction relief

Medical records were cumulative 
The elements of a claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel included substandard performance resulting in prejudice. Prejudice as to sentencing is almost always conjectural “[g]iven the indeterminate nature of sentencing[.]” Sentencing of 20 years confinement “when the jury recommended 30 years” after hearing testimony of movant’s medical conditions rendered unlikely a lesser sentence if the trial counsel had offered medical records. And movant never offered those records. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
Hosea Robinson, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112492

Untimely motion must be dismissed, not denied 
Circuit court authority to grant post-conviction relief depended on strict compliance with rules, including deadlines for filing. Filing late deprived circuit courts of authority to hear motions. The initial motion was late and the record showed that active interference of any third person did not cause the filing to be late. Therefore, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, except for changing “denied” to “dismissed.” 
(Overview Summary) 
David L. Ross, Appellant, vs. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112454

No advice better than misadvice 
The elements of a claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel included prejudice resulting from substandard performance. Substandard performance could include misadvice, but not the failure to advise entirely, on a guilty plea’s collateral consequences. Collateral consequences included prison after revocation of probation. And the record showed that movant well knew the consequences of probation revocation. The circuit court denied relief and the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
Markel Vasquez, Appellant, v. State of Missouri, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112191

Probate

Matters moot or unpreserved for appeal 
Actions to appoint a guardian or conservator were adversary proceedings so rules of civil procedure applied, including the duty to seek a remedy for error in circuit court. “Because appellate courts merely review for trial errors, there can be no review of a matter which has not been presented to or expressly decided by the trial court. . . . This is so by court rule, statute, and controlling case law.” A motion to vacate a judgment of guardianship or conservatorship initiated an action separate from the guardianship or conservatorship action, so appeal of the guardianship or conservatorship judgment did not include the motion to vacate. The motion to vacate left the circuit court’s authority on the filing of a notice of appeal in the guardianship or conservatorship judgment. The death of a ward or protectee mooted an order of incapacity. 
In the Matter of KYONG SPRUILL, An Adult, J-PIA SPRUILL, Petitioner-Respondent v. ARTHUR SPRUILL, JR., Intervenor-Appellant 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Southern District – SD38541

Real Estate

Judgment upholding ordinance reversed 
Cities had no inherent zoning authority, only such authority as conferred under zoning statutes. Zoning statutes specified the notice and opportunity to be heard required before passing a zoning ordinance. Failure to comply voided any such ordinance. The city published notice but did not hold the hearing, then held the hearing without publishing notice. Judicial review of an administrative decision required exhaustion of administrative remedies. Zoning ordinances were legislative acts and not administrative decisions. Therefore, no exhaustion of any administrative remedy was necessary before property owner filed a declaratory judgment action. And no administrative remedy could cure any zoning ordinance void for lack of compliance with zoning statutes. On dueling summary judgment motions, the circuit court denied property owner’s declaratory relief. The Missouri Court of Appeals reversed the judgment. 
(Overview Summary) 
Arch Energy, L.C., Appellant, v. City of Brentwood, Respondent. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District – ED112714

Workers’ Compensation

Conclusory testimony did not prevail 
The elements of a claim on the Second Injury Fund included an earlier compensable injury. Compensable injury had a definition in the statutes and the workers’ compensation statutes, which were subject to strict construction, so the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission could not graft extra elements onto the definition of compensable injury. The elements of a compensable claim included relation to work, causation as a prevailing factor in claimant’s disability, and a different risk from everyday life. On those elements, claimant offered no evidence beyond conclusory answers to counsel’s questions that the commission could disbelieve. Because claimant did not show a qualifying pre-existing injury, the degree of the injury was irrelevant. The Missouri Court of Appeals did not review an argument not raised to the commission. 
(Overview Summary) 
Jerry Thomas, Appellant, vs. Collins & Hermann, Inc., and State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondents. 
Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District - ED112795

No enhancement from earlier injury
The elements of a claim against the Second Injury Fund included a later injury that, combined with at least one earlier qualifying injury, constituted the minimum degree of disability—measured in weeks of disability—for an award. The statutes also allowed an enhanced measure of weeks for the synergistic effect of multiple injuries. Claimant’s enhanced weeks from earlier injuries did not carry forward to the later injury because the enhanced weeks did not come from a qualifying earlier injury. “When there are multiple disabilities in a compensation award, each preexisting disability must be evaluated individually to determine whether it [qualifies] to be considered a qualifying preexisting disability [.]” Without the enhanced weeks, claimant did not reach the minimum disability for an award.
MARK WALTON, Appellant v. TREASURER OF MISSOURI AS CUSTODIAN OF SECOND INJURY FUND, Respondent
Supreme Court of Missouri - SD38504